220 Royal Society :-— 
PROCEEDINGS OF LEARNED SOCIETIES. 
ROYAL SOCIETY. . 
January 30, 1868.—Lieut.-General Sabine, President, in the Chair. 
“Remarks upon Archeopteryx lithographica.” By Prof. T. H. 
Huxtey, LL.D., F.R.S. 
The unique specimen of Archeopteryx lithographica (von Meyer) 
which at present adorns the collection of fossils in the British Mu- 
seum, is undoubtedly one of the most interesting relics of the extinct 
fauna of long-past ages ; and the correct interpretation of the fossil 
is of proportional importance. Hence I do not hesitate to trouble 
the Royal Society with the following remarks, which are, in part, 
intended to rectify certain errors which appear to me to be contained 
in the description of the fossil in the Philosophical Transactions for 
1863*. 
It is obviously impossible to compare the bones of one animal 
satisfactorily with those of another, unless it is clearly settled that 
such is the dorsal.and such the ventral aspect of a vertebra, and that 
such a bone of the limb-arches, or limbs, belongs to the left, and such 
another to the right side. 
Identical animals may seem to be quite different, if the bones of 
the same limbs are compared under the impression that they belong 
to opposite sides ; and very different bones may appear to be similar, 
if those of opposite sides are placed in juxtaposition. | 
The following citations, and the remarks with which I accompany 
them, however, will show that these indispensable conditions of com- 
parison have not been complied with in the memoir to which I refer. 
1. “The moiety (Plate I.) containing the greater number of the 
petrified bones exhibits such proportion of the skeleton from the in- 
ferior or ventral aspect’ (l..c. p. 34). 
I propose to show, on the contrary, that the fossilized animal pre- 
sents, in general, its dorsal aspect to the eye, though one of the most 
conspicuous bones may have been so twisted round as to exhibit its 
ventral face. 
2. The demonstration that the bones of the Arch@opteryx are 
thus wrongly interpreted, may be best commenced by showing that 
what is called ‘‘right femur (65), tibia (66), and bones of the foot 
(68, 2, a2, ii, iv),” Ll. c. p. 35, are respectively the left femur, left 
tibia, and bones of the left foot. 
That such is the case is very easily proved by the circumstance 
that (as is very properly pointed out in the memoir) the second toe 
of the foot in question is that which lies uppermost, while the plantar 
surface of the foot is turned outwards, and its dorsal aspect towards 
the vertebral column. 
If the limb in question were, as the describer of the fossil sup- 
* “On the Archaeopteryx of Von Meyer, with a description of the Fossil Re- 
mains of a Long-tailed Species, from the lithographic stone of Solenhofen.”” By 
Professor Owen, F.R.S. &c. 
